Jurisdiction over joined causes of action requires each claim to be triable by the court; otherwise the plaint must be returned.

Joinder of multiple causes of action is permissible only where the court has jurisdiction over each cause of action. The agency claim was not shown to have arisen at Tellicherry, and the contract was presumed to have been made and performed at Bombay, so the court lacked jurisdiction over that claim independently of its joinder with the partnership claim. Where a plaint combines causes triable by different courts, the proper course is return of the plaint with the appropriate endorsement rather than dismissal. The plaint should therefore be returned for presentation to the proper court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim arising out of the agency transactions and, if not, whether the plaint ought to have been returned for presentation to the proper court.

Analysis: The right to join more than one cause of action in one suit depended on the court having jurisdiction over each cause of action. The agency claim was not shown to have arisen at Tellicherry, and the contract was presumed to have been made and performed at Bombay. On that footing, the court lacked jurisdiction over the agency transactions independently of the joinder with the partnership claim. Where the plaint combined causes of action triable by different courts, the proper course was not dismissal of the suit but return of the plaint with the appropriate endorsement.

Conclusion: The court had no jurisdiction to try the agency claim, and the plaint ought to have been returned for presentation in the proper court.

---